Tea Party Questions

From my experience, TP's are nullifiers. They don't care what the enemy (aka Democrats) presents, they are against it. Obama's last address to Congress demonstrated that Republicans will boo their own plans if Obama presents them in a speech. I remember watching a video taken right after the last presidential election where a man got up on stage at a TP rally and asked how many people earned less than $200,000. The majority of the crowd cheered. He then asked if they wanted a tax cut. They cheered even louder. He then told them that Obama had just given them a tax cut. They booed.Bill Maher certainly is not right about everything, but he did say something on Jay Leno the other night which rings of truth. Paraphrasing, Republicans (and TPer's) would shoot themselves in the face if Obama told them they had a nice smile. TPer's have argued themselves into irrelevance by being against the very things they claim to be for just because it is presented by Democrats.

-TPers are against socialized medicine while demanding that they get Medicare.

Quite simple really. That same system would pay for your medical care if you were in the same situation.What is wrong with the idea of giving out medical care on the basis of people's health instead of what class they come from? For profit medical care will always leave out the bottom 10% because there is no profit in lowering your prices to treat the bottom 10%. When a chance at a healthy life is based on your social class it is immoral, at least in my book.

It is also totally bizarre coming from a movement that is supposedly a christian movement. How many times did Jesus talk about giving up your riches and helping the poor? How many times have the Pro-Lifers talked about how precious life is . . . unless they're poor.

What strikes me even more is Palin's rhetoric about helping out those "Momma Grizzlies".For instance, Palin has called for the repeal of "Obamacare". Part of that bill prevents insurance companies from taking away children's health insurance because they get sick. How does repealing Obamacare help out those Momma Grizzlies? I just don't understand how someone can say one thing but clearly campaign for just the opposite.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

All the rhetoric that I have heard calls for the flat repeal of Obamacare without any hint of what should replace it. Republicans in the House recently pushed a bill that would flat out repeal Obamacare without anything to replace it. I think the intent is very obvious. They think that the regulations that cut back on insurance company profits were bad and should be repealed immediately.

The House Republicans have already tried to repeal Obamacare, and only now are they trying to put forward a plan to replace it. Even worse, their plan is to give tax payer money to insurance companies. They don't want to fix the problem. They want to feed the problem.It is the complicit relationship between insurance companies and hospitals that is causing the drastic rise in health costs. As a for profit system it is in their interest to out-price the bottom 15% of Americans. There is no profit in lowering prices to make health care affordable to the bottom 15%. None. What is the Repulican plan? They want to encourage this behavior. Why? Because they cater to the rich. What percentage of TPers is made up of those who make more than $250,000 a year? Probably big minority. Ironic, isn't it?

Would it be ok with you if the bottom 15% of wage earners were not able to afford these services, and were therefore excluded from receiving these services? Do you think it is moral if the police refuse to follow up on a burglary because the person who was robbed can not afford their services? Would it be ok if a family had to watch their house burn down because they could not afford the $500 dollars a month the local for-profit fire department was charging?For that matter, let's completely deregulate the utilities and let them charge whatever they want and cut power to whomever they want if they are unable to pay. Would it be ok with you if families making 20k a year are not able to pay for the jacked up prices and have to huddle together for warmth the entire winter?

Rhetorical. I was hoping that Obama and the Dems in Congress would have at least one backbone to share between them. They didn't. Their ideas are in the right place, but they are always afraid to put them into law. Too bad.Obamacare was not health care reform. It was a tiny step towards health insurance reform. It saddened me deeply when Dems would say in an interview, "I would really like to see universal health care like we see in other first world nations, but we can't push that through congress." What a waste of my vote.

The US has it even worse. The US Government already pays out as much per capita as Canada, and that is just to cover Medicare. It doesn't even cover the rest of the population. Overall per capita spending (including private dollars) on health care is about double what you guys pay, and that doesn't even cover everyone (the uninsured are left out of this equation). For profit health care has resulted in a doubling of the cost, the exact opposite of what Republicans/TPer's claim should happen in a free market system. What TPer's fail to understand is that a for profit system has no reason to reduce costs so that it is affordable for everyone. They have every incentive to increase their charges to increase profits. To use an analogy, Mercedes-Benz sees no reason to reduce the cost of their cars so that lower income families can afford them.

Research is not a part of the figures for per capita spending on healthcare. The NIH budget is completely separate from the Medicare/Medicaid budget.

That is the only difference between US healthcare and healthcare in other first world nations. Americans pay about twice what other countries pay per capita. It is quite easy to see why. First, you have an unnecessary middle man: insurance companies. The only reason that these companies exist is to make money off of people getting healthcare. They offer NOTHING in the way of health services. Second, hospitals can deny treatment for non-emergencies. This allows them to set their prices at a level that leaves out the bottom 10% of wage earners. Any money lost treating lower income patients in the emergency room is added to the prices charged to higher income patients.In my own area of the country hospitals are still building like crazy, even in the middle of this recession. Some of the local hospitals claim that they are "not for profit". What this really means is that they pay employees bloated salaries and dump massive amounts of money into extravagant offices and unneeded facilities. If these hospitals were government run there would be a massive outcry, but since they are private everyone thinks it is business as usual.

No. Every dollar taken out in profit is a dollar not being spent on making the public healthier.

To be fair, there may be better specialists in the US than in Canada in some cases. I wouldn't be surprised if the waiting list is much shorter to non-existent for US doctors. Both of these would be draws for Canadian patients who have the money to afford it.The US healthcare system is pretty good if you can afford the top doctors. Of that I have no doubt. The hang up is "if you can afford it". To use an analogy, if every home in the US was a multi-million dollar mansion could we still claim that the US hase the best housing even if 90% of the population was homeless? I wouldn't think so.To get back to the topic, how bad does the healthcare system have to get before people fight back? How many more people have to die prematurely because they can not afford healthcare, or choose to die instead of bankrupting their families. When politicians claim that we can't afford universal health coverage it really pisses me off. How do they think we are paying for it right now? Do they think that everyone is getting free care or something? Or are they admitting that healthcare is so overpriced that our country could not afford to make healthcare available to everyone, universal or not? Either way, it is a very sad state of affairs.There is some silver lining though. Whenever a conservative says that we can not do universal health coverage remind them that the French are able to do it. That usually ruffles their feathers.

If it were up to me, I would expand on the current programs. For example, the VA system treats veterans, but only if they are low income. I say that we get rid of the income requirements and open up the VA system to all vets for life. The VA system could serve as a model for broader reforms, such as VA run medical schools that do not charge tuition but require a specific term of service after graduation. This would allow the VA to pay out less for salaries while also lowering the debt burden for medical students.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.